Peter.
What SS chassis do you have?
How about this one. T249362 1935 with 31/2 MKV.
Or this one. 249242 21/2 block with 31/2 long nose crank.
Peter B.
Hi Peter,
Iām away from home at the moment so I canāt just nip out and take a photo.
I have a 1939 2Ā½ litre saloon. If I remember correctly there was a couple of reasons why I modified the MkV shaft Iām currently using. I think the most basic is that even with the SS shaft itās a tight fit to get the engine installed due to clearance at the cross member and at the bulkhead. Another reason was because I wanted to retain my original water pump/fan assembly and crank pulley.
The SS1 cars that you cite and also the coachbuilt SS Jaguars have more space between the block and the front cross member so it doesnāt surprise me that an unmodified MkV engine fits.
Peter
Iām not sure if this shows the difference very well but look at the clearance between the fanbelt and radiator in an SS1 fitted with an SS Jaguar engine and my engine.
Peter
The position of the fan belt, water pump etc will not change.
The short nose crank has approx 3/8"of the threads relieved to act as a
spigot for the starting handle. Therefore cutting 4.5"from the thread
of the long nose crank,using a plain retaining nut and turning a spacer
to fit over the plain section of the crank in theory 4.5" thick, does the job.
Peter B.
Hi Peter,
Sorry, the point I was trying to illustrate with the photos is that the front cross member in the SS1 is much further forward than in the all steel SS Jaguars and MkIVs. In the absence of photos showing cross members I was showing the greater clearance between the engines and radiators.
The required length reduction is only 0.35". Not 4.5".
Peter
I must admit , my days of crankstarting any of my cars has long gone , so I donāt worry about the correct crank handle engagement, For timing we use a large spanner on the nut. Although all of our work has been on putting engines into SS/ and MK IVs not into MK Vs.
I do see that on the picture here of the saloon engine, it has one post war floatbowl top and one pre war . although the breathing in them operates different
Hi Ed,
OK, I confess to the float chamber lids but I notice that you didnāt comment on the engine in the SS1 with its wrong or fake dynamo and that it has an SS oil filler cap on a MkIV cylinder head. 
I also confess to needing the starting handle on my carās last outing at the JDC South of Scotland Tour. Traveling the 170 miles from Edinburgh to Stranraer was in non-stop heavy rain and the next morning it was still pouring and misty.
I churned away on the starter for several minutes before deciding that I had to get out and look under the bonnet in the pouring rain. A quick wipe of the plug insulators and I was back in the car. This time she showed willing but my 12 year old battery was less happy but a couple of pulls on the handle and she was running.
Peter 
Yes 0.35 my mistake with the 4.5 and not 0.45, although the extra 1/10th
might help!, The length of the additional spacer can be machined to suit.
Conceding that the long nose crank, with quite simple modification to shorten to the overall length of the short nose crank, will fit a 38 on chassis,
seems to be a problem!
Peter B.
Peter new batteries are cheaper then chiropracters.
I was too polite comment on the SS1in detail, other wise I would have mentioned the battery, the chrome bonnet catch bodies, the wiring loom which looks like a PMG cable pillar,the dist cap etc
the trouble being a oost war engine has the post war water rail and thermostat and so has the postwar water pump which sits to high to have a full fan. An SS water pump will fit ona post war engine .
Greetings All,
The Flathead, once it was past its prime, was likely replaced with an OHV one.
SS no longer had access to the Standard unit. This along with the fact that SS would have made more profit on selling a replacement OHV than a sidevalve from Standard.
There was no way Lyons was going to let Standard profit more than SS.
Iām guessing this was an easy upsell to those willing.
You are, with SS,ā like I am with DKWs.
Only difference isā¦ waaay more people care about your knowledge baseā¦
Paul
Is a DKW, a BMW owned by a dyslexic?
1 Like
Mehā¦the doors on a 1000 open the wrong way!
However, fellow Lister, Ove, from Norway, might want the license platesā¦
I was looking to buy a Mesa Boogle Mark V soon (made a couple threads aiready) but from researching a little bit more, a lot of people seem to like their Mark IV. Its almost a 50/50 split, and if not, more people seem to like the Mark IV more than the Mark V. I just want more information about water or oil pump.
I just wanted to know what GC$amp; A thought. Iāve looked on the Mesa Boogle boards for similar threads, but they semm to be a few years old. I figured thereās be a slightly more solid opinuon on the Mark V now, and hopefully more people have gotten their hands on one.
We seem to have arrived at a different planet. Mesa Boogie to my knowledge are guitar amplifiers. Something Iām guessing most people here wonāt have an informed opinion on For my 2 centns worth , I 'd stick to a Vox AC 30
1 Like
Butā¦what about the Mk IV Fendersonic amp?
I play through a Fender Twin Reverb, which has tubes or valves, but does not have a water or oil pump.
1 Like
ā¦but, does it go to 11?
Well, it has 12 knobs and each one has 10 numbers so it must be a 120.
It says Fender on it so it must be a car part. It has wheels, switches, lights, wires, plugs, jacks, capacitors, valves, grille (cloth), a metal chassis and a wood body, and it blows fuses so it must be a car. But it has no tap, spinal or otherwise.
1 Like
+1ā¦